Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might want to inform the judges who have ruled AGAINST that idea, even asking if marriage was all about procreation why can the elderly and infertile get married. They obviously have no idea what marriage is all about.
Under the current definition as long as it is a man seeking to marry a woman, there are only prohibitions on the age (at a state level) of a minor.
The issue is that the fundamental understanding of marriage from the beginning of time (hyperbole due to exasperation over repeating the same logic over and over) and the fundamental understanding within Western Culture (see, I am just following those norms established by civilizations and generation that came before me) has been that it is a union between a man and woman.
If you step back and put your emotions aside for a moment, and this does require some intellectual honesty, all societies have always deemed marriage to be between one man and one woman. Yes, there are societies currently and historically where marriage involved one man and more than one woman, but the underlying and defining characteristics of what societies deems marriage have involved the uniting of members of the opposite sex.
The fact that gays want to change that based solely on the fact that they find the opposite sex "icky" (hat tip jjrose) is clearly a request for special treatment under the law. If a group were to demand that polygamy be reinstated as their "right" to marry, and is protected under the 14th Amendment, I would argue (or rant in your opinion) that the group is seeking special treatment under the law based on their desire to have society recognize their preference for several wives.
Alright, here's the real truth (using only 'intellectual' evidence). In Western history, the stance towards LGBT marriage has varied, even if for most of its Christian history did place a rigid position on what constitutes as marriage. Prior to the spread of Christianity of Europe, many groups, including the Celtic nations (at one point in history covering most of the continent) accepted homosexuality. Parts of the Middle East and China operated in the same way. Furthermore, while there were considerable variations in opinion/customs, ancient Greece was mostly tolerant of LGBT equality. In ancient Greece and in ancient Rome, same-sex 'marriages' were allowed. It was not until Christianity became the official religion that same-sex marriage was abolished, setting the stage for the next several centuries.
In other parts of the world, this was a completely foreign idea. Many of the indigenous nations of North America fully embraced LGBT partnerships, including the 'two spirit' philosophy. European hatred of homosexuality and the idea of same-sex couples was one of many 'justifications' of their destruction of entire nations. In many parts of south Asia and the South Pacific, same-sex couples held an equal position in society until the relatively recent spread of Christianity. In many parts they still do.
In any case we should not look to 'normalcy' as a good thing when it results in so much needless suffering. People everywhere are beginning to challenge this. If you are so concerned with Western culture, look to all the Western nations that have already legalised same-sex marriage in the past ten-fifteen years. The LGBT 'liberation movement' or whatever has existed for centuries, much like feminist and racial-equality movements. Just because those movements were suppressed does not mean that it was 'natural'.
Assigning a single purpose to marriage is inherently flawed in that it boxes it in and limits it potential anyway.
many groups, including the Celtic nations (at one point in history covering most of the continent) accepted homosexuality. Parts of the Middle East and China operated in the same way. Furthermore, while there were considerable variations in opinion/customs, ancient Greece was mostly tolerant of LGBT equality. In ancient Greece and in ancient Rome, same-sex 'marriages' were allowed. It was not until Christianity became the official religion that same-sex marriage was abolished, setting the stage for the next several centuries.
Couldn't rep you again. I was just about to post a long article about history. But you beat me to it. Marks for remembering the American Indian "two spirits" philosophy. Homosexuals were held in particularly high regard in the New World for most of our existence.
I'll add buccaneer culture to your list -- there were all kinds of interesting views about marriage and sexuality among pirates.
Freely exercising ones religious faith is a constitutionally guaranteed by the First Amendment which: prohibits [unequivocally]... the making ofany law.... impeding the free exercise of religion.
What part of that indicates that a private business owner's religious freedom is subservient to a state law?
B.S. There are tons of laws that reign in free exercise of religion. I can not use peyote legally even though it is a religious belief. I can not refuse service to women even though it is a religious belief. I can not sacrifice virgins even though it is a religious belief.
B.S. There are tons of laws that reign in free exercise of religion. I can not use peyote legally even though it is a religious belief. I can not refuse service to women even though it is a religious belief. I can not sacrifice virgins even though it is a religious belief.
Generally applicable laws - look it up.
Peyote use is legal for religious purposes, just as an FYI.
Difference is that your wanting to barre people equal rights is based on who they are and not what they do, even if the two tie together.
You are being mocked for making outrageous statements over and over again, but nobody is saying that you do not deserve equal rights. That is a consistent position.
Alright that doesn't make sense to me.
Does it define 'homosexual behavior' at all?
Yes.
The Torah states:
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
That is a pretty straightforward statement. And those who believe that the Torah, or the Old Testament (for Christians) was divinely inspired and reflects the actual words of God, do not believe in current reinterpretations by individuals with personal reasons to find a different meaning within them.
And in most states (soon to be all 50) any man can also marry a man and a woman can marry a woman.
Slavery was legal, too. Just because it is a law does not make it right or moral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
